Original Intent
Volume 7 Issue 3—May 2011 Original Intent is published by The Nat’l Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies, Inc.— PO Box 906— Raymond, NH — 03077
Restoring the Framers’ Republic: A Chimerical Thing?
CHAIRMAN’S CORNER
For Heaven’s Sake…
America IS a Republic!
_Dianne Gilbert
Our nation was born a republic! Yet, to our own
demise, Americans are of a
nature to call their government a DEMOCRACY! Intentionally or through ignorance, the term democracy rolls off the lips of
elected officials, political
Dianne Gilbert
hacks,
and TV talking
Chairman NHCCS
heads to describe our system of government. Its use is further encouraged by a government education system notwithstanding the fact that we “pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the REPUBLIC for which it
stands!” But then, that might well explain the
push to remove the Pledge of Allegiance from
America’s classrooms, for it stands in stark
contrast to what is being taught there today.
It Was a Plan…Not a “Great Experiment!”
Though we often hear differently, America
is neither a democracy nor something akin to a
“great experiment.” To the contrary, many of the
ideas the Framers instituted were not of their
own creation and, most certainly, not experimental in nature. Our nation’s forefathers
were avid students of history and well studied
in all of the ancient governments. In their pursuit to craft a more perfect union, they stood on
the shoulders of liberty oriented political theorists; those like Richard Hooker, John Locke,
Montesquieu, Blackstone and many more.
They scrutinized the various systems of government known to have operated in their time
and before their time. They were careful to
avoid the failures of both the Roman Republic
and the Greek Democracy. As Benjamin
Franklin explained: “We have gone back to ancient
history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics…And we have viewed modern
states all around Europe.” 1
The Making of America
With the lessons of history guiding them,
the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention labored to craft a government that
would not exploit the people, a government
well suited to guaranteeing its citizens their
God-given unalienable rights, the most important of which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To hedge the inherent risks
of creating a more powerful central government, they modeled the American Republic
(Continued on page 3 - America is a Republic)
What Kind of People Should We Elect
To Public Office?
_ Dr. Earl Taylor
Dr. Earl Taylor, Jr. is President of the National Center for
Constitutional Studies. He has taught The Making of America
Constitutional Study course to thousands of people over the
past twenty years throughout the nation, and has developed
other study courses for a wide range of participants, from
high school students to state legislators.
Educated in Washington State and Arizona, Mr. Taylor
graduated from Arizona State University and received his
Masters Degree in Political Science from George Wythe
College and Coral Ridge Baptist University. He has had the
privilege of being privately tutored by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen
over the course of many years, a man to whom we owe a
great debt of gratitude.
Dr. Taylor became President of the National Center for
Constitutional Studies (NCCS) in 1995, an organization
founded by Dr. Skousen in 1971 as the Freemen Institute for
the purpose of teaching Americans the exciting message of
the Founding Fathers. Mr. Taylor was awarded an Honorary
Doctor of Law degree from George Wythe College and Coral
Ridge Baptist University. He also serves as a member of the
adjunct faculty of George Wythe College.
In his desire to begin to train young people in the American
founding, Dr. Taylor established one of the first
charter high schools in Arizona, Heritage Academy, where he
has developed a special curriculum for teaching
hundreds of students the exciting message of our nation’s
Founding Fathers.
Dr. Taylor has been a special friend to NHCCS. He is a true
friend of liberty and to the Framers’ Constitution. Reprinted
with permission from NCCS March 2010 newsletter.
Several years ago I was to drive from
Phoenix to Tucson to attend a political
meeting. Just before I left, a young man
phoned and asked if he could ride with me
to the meeting. As we became acquainted
during the drive, I found he was a student at
the university and majoring in political science. I asked him what he wanted to do
with such a degree when he finished school
and he replied: I want to have a career in
politics.
My mind immediately reflected on the
words of Samuel Adams who said:
"But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and
happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He
therefore is the truest friend to the
liberty of his country who tries
most to promote its virtue, and who,
so far as his power and influence
extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any
office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man."
Sam
Adams
went on to say
that public officials should not
be chosen if they
are lacking in experience, training,
proven virtue, and
demonstrated wisdom. He said the
task of the electorate is to choose
those
whose
Earl Taylor Jr.
"fidelity has been tried
in the nicest and tenderest manner, and has been ever
firm and unshaken."
While this young man had the best of intentions, I am sure, and we did have an enjoyable
visit the rest of the way, I couldn't help asking
myself: Where is this young man's experience? His training? His proven virtue? His
demonstrated wisdom? How has his fidelity to
principle been proven to be firm and unshaken? According to Adams, these qualities
should be developed before seeking public
office.
Building a Natural Aristocracy
Jefferson said in America we reject the artificial aristocracy of Europe, wherein political
office is gained through inheritance, wealth,
or birth. He said that under American liberty
and equality, a natural aristocracy would develop based on virtue and talents. This natural
process will come about without force, almost
silently, like cream rising to the top of a gallon of raw milk. As people seek to develop
themselves and their life's work, they will become wise. They will perhaps learn what it is
like to live under unjust laws or high taxes.
They will learn how to deal justly with people
and how to persuade them to do good. They
will come to appreciate what freedom does for
people. In the process, others will come to
(Continued on page 4 - Electing Public Officials)
What Would They Say...
When the public virtue is gone, when the
national spirit is fled...the republic is lost in
essence, though it may still exist in form.
_John Adams to Benjamin Rush 1808
Page 2
Original Intent
Biographical Sketch: Luther Martin ~ Federal Bull Dog
If the states had coalesced so generously
to gain freedom from an oppressive power,
why should that open association be locked
up by a far stronger, central power. Luther
Martin saw that as wrong. But in spite of
his strong oratory and passion the Constitution was ratified. (His own state, Maryland
was seventh in that process.)
One of the areas about which he was
most passionate was sovereignty. He submitted what eventually became Article VI
as a construction for states to maintain their
voice at the national level. Compared to his
proposal, the final copy is clearly ‘big government,’ Martin’s words. Resolved, “that
Legislative acts of the U.S. made by virtue
of and in pursuance of the articles of Union,
and all Treaties made and ratified under the
authority of the U.S. shall be the supreme
law of the respective States, as far as those
acts or treaties shall relate to the said
States, or their Citizens and inhabitants-&
that the Judiciaries of the several States
shall be bound thereby in their decisions,
anything in the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The final copy read: “This Constitution,
and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
It may seem like a minor adjustment, but
exchanging the supreme law of the states to
the supreme law of the land is a sea change
in authority. Martin intended to keep maximum power at the state level. The Constitution invests that control in Congress. This is
but one example of how that contract decided a question of power. Does the term
‘law of the Land’ carry the same significance as ‘laws of the respective states?’
Where does the power lie?
It was Luther Martin’s belief and contention that the States were supreme. And he
spent his life fighting for the rights of states.
“He lamented the ascension of the national government over the states and condemned what he saw as unequal representation in Congress. Martin opposed including
slaves in determining representation and
believed that the absence of a jury in the
Supreme Court gravely endangered freedom. At the convention, Martin complained,
the aggrandizement of particular states and
individuals often had been pursued more
avidly than the welfare of the country.” And
what did this term ‘Federal’ imply?
Among his notable cases are his defense
and acquittal of Aaron Burr in 1807, and his
friend, Supreme Court Justice Samuel
Chase, in 1805. But, in regard to his championing of states’ rights, McCullough vs.
MD, 1819, must take priority. In a grueling
3-day long argument, he contended that
Congress did not have power to grant charters to incorporations; and that, if they did,
the states had power to tax the same. He lost
this case to the plaintiff, ably defended by
Daniel Webster and David Pinckney. That
ordeal took its toll on Martin physically.
He eventually suffered a severe stroke and
a resulting paralysis. Penniless, he was taken
in by Aaron Burr and spent his remaining
years as a guest in Burr’s home. He died July
10, 1826.
During the days of the Convention, Luther
Martin said to fellow Delegate Daniel Jenifer
about the Constitution: “I’ll be hanged if
ever the people of Maryland agree to it.” Mr.
Jenifer responded, “I advise you to stay in
Philadelphia lest you should be hanged.”
To the contrary, in 1822 the state of Maryland passed a law, an unprecedented mandate,
requiring every lawyer to pay an annual tax of
$5.00 in support of Luther Martin. Hanged
indeed!
Lee Button, Vice-Chairman NHCCS
How’s Your Constitutional IQ?
Based upon U.S.I.Q. from NCCS
1) Certain huge cities have become larger in
population than a number of states. Some
want their own representatives in Congress and the Senate, even though they
are not necessarily asking for full statehood. Could this be achieved by an
amendment to the Constitution?
2) What is the one offense the President cannot pardon?
3) Name two reasons why the Founders
were so strongly opposed to direct taxes,
especially income taxes.
4) Which amendment deals with warrants of
arrest?
5) Name the two most unpopular amendments to the Constitution.
6) Benjamin Franklin said that most people
have a “natural inclination” to drift toward what kind of government?
7) In what city was George Washington first
inaugurated as President of the United
States?
8) When the President nominates a person
for a high office in government, what portion of the Senate must confirm the nomination?
9) According to the Constitution there are
two kinds of treason. What are they?
10) Who was the only President to serve in
Congress after being President?
Answers:
1) No. The Constitution specifically says that no amendment can
deprive the states of equal representation and voting rights in the
Senate. To give cities special representation would violate this
provision. 2) Impeachment 3) Direct taxes such as the income tax
and poll taxes; they are impossible to assess fairly and direct
taxes are impossible to collect fairly without invading the privacy
rights of the taxpayers. 4) Fourth Amendment 5) 18th Amendment
providing for Prohibition and the 16th Amendment providing for the
income tax. 6) A strong central government, such as a government
with a king. 7) New York City which was the capital of the United
States at that time. 8) A majority of those present. 9)Waging or
levying war against the United States and Giving aid and comfort to
an enemy. 10) John Quincy Adams served in the
House of Representatives for nearly 17 years
after being President.
“The ratification of this Constitution is so repugnant to the
Terms on which we are all
bound to amend and alter the
former that it became a matter
of surprise to many that the
proposition could meet with
any
countenance or support.
Luther Martin
Our present Constitution ex1748—1826
pressly directs that all the
States must agree before it can be dissolved;
but on the other hand it was contended that a
Majority ought to govern--That a dissolution
of the Federal Government did not dissolve
the State Constitutions which were paramount
to the Confederacy. That the Federal Government, being formed out of the State Governments the People at large have no power to
interfere in the Federal Constitution. Nor has
the State or Federal Government any power
to confirm a new Institution. That this Government if ratified and Established will be
immediately from the People, paramount the
Federal Constitution and operate as a dissolution of it.”
So intensely did Luther Martin believe that
the new Constitution was unlawful and contrary to the desires of the people that he
walked out of the Philadelphia Convention
before the debates were concluded. He did
reappear two weeks later but continued to
oppose what he may have called a national
usurpation of states’ authority. His dogged
determination to stop the Constitution led
Thomas Jefferson to name him the ‘Federal
Bulldog.’
He was not greatly prominent at the outset.
“This gentleman possesses a great deal of
information but he has a very bad delivery,
and so extremely prolix (verbose), that he
never speaks without tiring the patience of all
who hear him.” So James Madison describes
him.
In defense of Madison, Martin did speak
for 3 straight hours in opposition to the Virginia Plan. (That was sure to bore a Virginian.) But in the next few months and years,
his reputation and legacy grew. How did Mr.
Martin get here?
Luther was born in New Brunswick, NJ,
February 9, 1748. Like many of his fellow
convention lawyers he was trained at the College of NJ, Princeton. Relocating to Queenstown, Maryland, he studied law and was
eventually admitted to the bar of Maryland
and Virginia. His practice in Somerset became extremely lucrative, the largest law office in the state. Before the court in Williamsburg, Virginia, in one term he defended
38 clients- 29 were acquitted. He was a busy
man.
His reputation for bold, consistent speech
led to his appointment on a commission to
oppose the claims of King George regarding
the Colonies. As Maryland State Attorney
General, he hounded Loyalists, bringing as
many to trial as he could.
During the War he showed his patriotic
zeal by joining the Baltimore Dragoons. His
fervor for the independence of the states was
never doubted. That may be why he opposed
the direction of the new Constitution.
Volume 7—Issue 3
(Continued from page 1 - America is a Republic)
after two ancient examples; namely: the representative republic established by Moses for
governing the ancient Israelites2 and the republic established in England, in or about 450
AD, by the Anglo-Saxons.3
These two governments were not only
similar in structure but also in the way they
operated. Accordingly, the Framers turned to
what Jefferson called the “ancient principles”
for two reasons: 1) to provide for the safety of
our personal liberties; and, 2) to provide stability for the new government by lodging it in
the unchanging principles of natural law,
God’s Law.
Informed by Enlightenment
thinker and English Philosopher,
John Locke, the founders subscribed to the belief that: “[T]he
Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to
all men, legislators as well as others. The
rules that they make for other men’s
actions must…be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e. to
the will of God.” In other words, the actions we take, at any
level of society, had better conform to the “positive law of
Scripture otherwise they are ill made” 4 and violate
God’s will for His people.
Thus, it should come as no surprise to see
an image of Moses carrying the Ten Commandments carved into the edifice of the U.S.
Supreme Court building. Nor, for that matter,
to see the Ten Commandments etched into its
metal doorframes; and, better yet, to see them
carved into the marble frieze directly above
the area where the Supreme Court Justices sit,
symbolic of the Framers’ ensconcing American Civil Law in biblical principle.
Our nation’s Founding Fathers were God
fearing men who knew their place; they understood that what God gave only God could
rightfully take away.
Understanding they
would answer to God in the next world for
their actions in this one, our forefathers
avoided implementing any form of government, or law, found to violate God’s sovereign
right to govern His people. And so, outside of
writing into the Constitution the democratic
method of electing representatives by qualified voters, the Framers steered clear of establishing anything resembling a democracy.
For, the lessons of history had clearly revealed
that form of government as one built upon a
foundation of shifting sand, therefore a threat
to individual liberty.
This explains why the word democracy is
nowhere to be found in the Constitution, nor
in any State constitution or, for that matter, in
any of the four founding documents comprising American organic law. Yet, in Article IV
of the Constitution, the Framers do guarantee:
“to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” 5 [emphasis added].
Republic v. Democracy…Synonyms or Antonyms?
Although the words democracy and republic
are used interchangeably
today, our forefathers understood their difference. As
James Madison, father of
the Constitution, noted, democracies were “spectacles of
turbulence and contention” and
were “incompatible with personal
security or the rights of property;
and have in general been as short in their lives as they
Page 3
have been violent in their deaths.”
Governor Edmund Randolph, a Virginian
and delegate to the 1787
Constitutional Convention,
pointed out that the whole
purpose of the Philadelphia
Convention was “to provide a
cure for the evils under which the
United States labored; that in tracing
these evils to their origin every man
had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy…”
Not to be out done, Alexander Hamilton,
New York delegate to the Constitutional
Convention, and a nationalist at heart, found
democracy, as a form of government, wholly
unsuitable for governing a nation of libertyloving people. He said, “The ancient democracies
in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very
character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Anyone who has experienced the Town
Meeting form of government knows exactly
what these Founding Fathers are saying.
What goes on at a town meeting is democracy in action, the ganging-up of special
interest groups in support of each other’s
agenda. They unite to form a solid voting
block then proceed to vote to themselves
whatever they wish under the color of law; after
all, it was voted upon wasn’t it? They apply
the concept of majority rule without understanding the limited role the Framers assigned to its use; they exercise it without
regard to the constitutionally protected rights
of the minority or to the long run impact respecting their own personal liberties or that
of their posterity.
Our founding fathers would frown upon
such behavior; essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson would label it “government by bullies;” and
American statesman, James Russell Lowell,
would say it is democracy demonstrating
what democracies do best, giving “to every
man the right to be his own oppressor.”
America Reduced to a Democracy
America was established as a Republic
and not by happenstance! Her institutions
under the Constitution were checked, balanced and tied to a doctrine of constitutional
supremacy, not the whims of man. Her parts
were carefully drawn from time-tested ideas
to create a government uniquely American.
Its authority to act was limited; its powers
were enumerated, spelled out in plain language between the covers of the nation’s
owners’ manual, the Constitution for the United
States of America.6
Now, some 213 years after the ratification
of the Constitution, progressivism
(euphemism for European socialism), has all
but destroyed what the founding fathers
painstakingly crafted. To our own detriment,
we have allowed this destructive ideology to
transform the Framers’ benign republican
government into a collectivist scheme.
American government now operates as if it
had been instituted as a democracy. It was
given its legs under the progressive administrations of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
Wilson; it proliferated under the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and some
that were yet to come.
(Continued on page 5 America is a Republic)
“In Pursuance thereof…”
Law vs. the Color of Law
If our Founding Fathers were here today, they would be appalled at
the number of laws Americans are made to live under currently.
Much of what is commonly referred as Federal Law, would not be
considered law at all by the Framers of the constitution. But,
because these bad pieces of legislation are passed by a vote of the
Congress, they take on the color of law. Our Founding Fathers
declared that all laws passed by the Congress must conform to the
Constitution, otherwise these so-called laws are void and unenforceable. The Framers expressed the conformance rule in Article
6 Clause 2 of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and
the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; ...shall be the
supreme Law of the Land;…”
“I do not know a word in the English language
so good as the word pursuance, to express the
idea meant and intended by the Constitution...When Congress makes a law in virtue of
their constitutional authority, it will be an
actual law… every law consistent with the
Constitution will have been made in pursuance
of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation
or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in
pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void…”
_Thomas Johnston
“They can, by this, make no treaty which shall
be repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, or
inconsistent with the delegated powers. The
treaties they make must be under the authority of the United States, to be within their
province. It is sufficiently secured because it
only declares that, in pursuance of the powers
given, they shall be the supreme law of the
land, notwithstanding any thing in the constitution or laws of particular states.”
_Wilson C. Nicholas, Delegate from VA.
“What is the meaning of this, but that, as we
have given power, we will support the execution of it?...It is saying no more than that, when
we adopt the government, we will maintain and
obey...Then, when the Congress passes a law
consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense
of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp
another, they will violate the Constitution....The
question, then, under this clause, will always be
whether Congress has exceeded its authority. If
it has not exceeded it, we must obey, otherwise
not.
_James Iredell, Delegate from N.C.
“[I]t is said that the laws of the Union are to be
the supreme law of the land—It will not, I
presume, have escaped observation, that it
expressly confines this supremacy to laws made
pursuant to the Constitution.
_Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #33
“This Constitution, as to the powers therein
granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of
the land...It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the Powers
specially granted, and not in usurpations. If
you grant any power to the federal government,
the laws made in pursuance of that power must
be supreme and uncontrolled in their operation.”
_William Davie, Delegate from N.C.
Page 4
(Continued from page 1 - Electing Public Officials)
trust them more and more. People will seek
counsel at their hands. They will become pillars of strength in their homes, their businesses, and their communities.
After explaining the wonders
of this natural aristocracy,
Jefferson said we should so
construct a government, which
will then provide a system
whereby these leaders in private
endeavors can be skimmed off
the top and entrusted with political leadership
of the people for a time. Said he:
"May we not even say, that that form of government is
the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure
selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"
John Adams had the same feelings about
those who served in political office. They
were repulsed by those who wanted these offices for their own gain (or should we say for
a career). John Adams observed:
"How is it possible that any man should ever think of
making it (political office) subservient to his own little
passions and mean private interests? Ye baseborn sons of
fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a
gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers?"
A Divine Science
I have always appreciated the
definition which John Adams
attached to politics. He said,
"Politics are the divine science."
Today, politics is thought of as
merely an art—the art of negotiating. Whoever can win the debate, be the most persuasive, and get the most
votes is the best politician. The Founders did
not agree it should be that way in America.
They said politics is the sacred duty to preserve the God-given rights of the people. To
them, there was something godly about public
service. They agreed with the Roman statesman Cicero who said:
"For there is really no other occupation in which human
virtue approaches more closely the august function of the
gods than that of founding new States or preserving those
already in existence."
Since the Creator endowed each individual
with liberty and agency, would He not be very
concerned that a society be so structured and
led, so that these liberties may be preserved?
In other words, such leadership may be
termed a godly function!
A Sacred Calling or Mission
Think of what a society would be like if its
leadership offices would be thought of as a
service or a mission. A person who has
proven experience or talents, perhaps retired
so that he does not need a big salary, would be
asked to serve his country for a time. Dr.
Skousen writes:
"In the early history of the United States, community
offices were looked upon as stations of honor granted to
the recipients by an admiring community, state, or nation.
These offices were therefore often filled by those who
performed their services with little or no compensation.
Even when an annual salary of $25,000 was provided in the
Constitution for President Washington, he determined to
somehow manage without it. Some might think that this
was no sacrifice because he had a large plantation. However, the Mount Vernon plantation had been virtually ruined
Original Intent
during the Revolutionary War, and he had not yet built it
back into efficient production when he was called to be
President. Washington declined his salary on principle.
He did the same thing while serving as Commander-inChief of the armed forces during the Revolutionary War.
Not all could afford to do this, but it was considered the
proper procedure when circumstances permitted it."
Political Office-A Unique Opportunity
The Founders considered political office
to be quite different than any other undertaking. In politics, there is a combination of
human passions found in no other place.
Benjamin Franklin described it this way:
"Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful
influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and
avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men
to action; but when united in view of the same object,
they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place
before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall
at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move
heaven and earth to obtain it.”
The uniqueness of politics is that it gives to
office holders the power over other peoples'
lives and over other peoples' money. No
other occupation or business provides this
kind of control. And that is why political
power is so corrupting. Few men or women
can handle it very long without gradually
beginning to exercise unrighteous dominion
over others. It is a fact of human nature.
What about Salaries of Public Officials?
The Founders felt that as soon as a salary is
attached to a public office, it immediately
becomes a job which people want to keep-even for a career. It is no longer considered a
real service. Franklin explained to a friend
the difference between public service in
America and in Europe:
"In America, salaries, where indispensable, are extremely low; but much of public business is done gratis.
The honor of serving the public ably and faithfully is
deemed sufficient. Public spirit really exists there, and
has great effects. In England it is universally deemed a
nonentity, and whoever pretends to it is laughed at as a
fool, or suspected as a knave."
In the Constitutional Convention, Franklin
gave a lengthy discourse on this subject. He
warned that high salaries for government
offices are the best way to attract scoundrels
and drive from the halls of public office
those men who possess true merit and virtue.
He asked: "And of what kind are the men that will
strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the
bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual
abuse of parties, tearing to pieces
the best of characters? It will not be
the wise and moderate, the lovers of
peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold
and the violent, the men of strong
passions and indefatigable activity in
their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into
your government, and be your rulers."
His next statement has turned out to be
prophetic:
"Sir, though we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long
continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed
augmentations; and there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in
return to give more to them."
But...Don't We Have to Pay Sufficient Salaries
to Attract Good People?
Franklin had an answer for those who worried that not paying high salaries would deprive our country of its best leaders. He used
the example of George Washington but he did
not use his name so as to not further embarrass
him who was presiding at the Convention:
"To bring the matter nearer home, have we not seen the
greatest and most important of our offices, that of general
of our armies, executed for eight years together, without
the smallest salary, by a patriot whom I will not now offend
by any other praise; and this, through fatigues and distresses, in common with the other brave men, his military
friends and companions, and the constant anxieties peculiar to his station? And shall we doubt finding three or four
men in all the United States, with public spirit enough to
bear sitting in peaceful council, for perhaps an equal term,
merely to preside over our civil concerns, and see that our
laws are duly executed? Sir, I have a better opinion of our
country. I think we shall never be without a sufficient number of wise and good men to undertake, and execute well
and faithfully, the office in question."
A modern-day comparison will bear out the
truth of Franklin's statement. In the state of
New Hampshire, the state legislators receive
no salary. There is also no state income tax in
the state of New Hampshire! In California,
state legislators are paid an annual salary of
$72,000 per year. California has one of the
highest state income tax rates in the nation.
The conclusion is self-explanatory.
Long before the Constitutional Convention,
where Franklin had made his plea for modest
salaries, Pennsylvanians had put the following
provision in their State Constitution. It included a solution to the problem of many people wanting the same office:
"As every freeman, to preserve his independence, (if he
has not a sufficient estate) ought to have some profession,
calling, trade, or farm, whereby he may honestly subsist,
there can be no necessity for, nor use in, establishing
offices of profit; the usual effects of which are dependence
and servility, unbecoming freemen, in the possessors and
expectants; faction, contention, corruption, and disorder
among the people. Wherefore, whenever an office, through
increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable, as to
occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be less-
ened by the legislature."
Hopefully, through the work of freedomloving people and with the grace of God on
our country, [last] year's elections will begin
to produce the kind of elected officials the
Founders envisioned.
_Dr. Earl Taylor President, NCCS
1. All quotes taken from the Five Thousand Year Leap by Dr.
W. Cleon Skousen, pp. 59-73.
The National Center for Constitutional Studies
(NCCS) is on the web at: www.nccs.net
What Would They Say...
We all agree that a general government is
necessary: But it ought not to go so far as to
destroy the authority of the members [states]
… The state constitutions should be the
guardians of our domestic rights and interests;
and should be both the support and the check
of the federal government.
_Melancton Smith
New York Ratifying Convention 1788
Volume 7—Issue 3
Page 5
(Continued from page 3 America is a Republic)
Little by little, they began tearing down the
pillars that the Framers had erected to undergird the safety of the republic: “…from the very
beginning the whole drive to convert our republic into a
democracy was in two parts. One part was to make our
people come to believe that we had, and were supposed to
have, a democracy. The second part was actually and
insidiously to be changing the republic into a democracy.” 7
Can the Framers’ Republic Be Saved?
The founding fathers established a Constitutional republic. They did so in order to provide the highest protection possible for our
God-given rights. To that end, the Framers
incorporated the freedom principles embodied
by the Declaration of Independence into the
Constitution itself.
In other words, these
principles were made “…a part of the very foundation
of our republic. And [these principles] said, that man has
certain unalienable rights which do not derive from government at all.” Considering that, both the government and
the people themselves “...are restricted in their power and
authority by man’s natural rights, or by the divine rights of
the individual man. And, those certain unalienable and
divine rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority
any more than they can be by the decree of a conqueror.” 8
[emphasis added]. That is, some rights are so precious to individual liberty that they must
never be made subject to a vote!
But here the virtue of the people, the prevailing culture, come into play. For, as Madison warned, the American Constitution is but
“a mere demarcation on parchment.” It is ineffectual
as a barrier against “tyrannical concentrations”
most likely to exist within a nation that has
lost its way: “To suppose that any form of government
will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the
people, is a chimerical idea.” 9
To survive, a republic, such as the one our
forefathers built, requires the support of a
high caliber body politic; one whose citizens
are properly educated in their Judeo-Christian
heritage and, by necessity, remain connected
to the longstanding traditions that define the
American culture.
Unfortunately, this is not the situation today.
Consequently, if we are to preserve this nation
for ourselves and our posterity, a restoration
of the ideas and principles of the men who
founded it becomes imperative. We can begin
the restoration by not calling America what
she is not and was never intended to be..., a
democracy!
America was founded as a Constitutional
Republic … Based upon the rule of law.
Call her by her right name!
Dianne Gilbert
– Chairman NHCCS, Inc.
1
As printed in Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution &
Religion, David Barton, p 213
2
Book of Exodus, 18:26. Moses, leader of the Ancient Israelites,
was advised by his father-in-law Jethro to divide the people into
manageable groups for the purposes of electing their own leaders that they may govern themselves. Moses did as advised
creating several levels of government in between himself and
the self-governing groups of people.
3
Anglo-Saxons brought their culture to England around 450
B.C. Jefferson discovered they had organized their government
in much the same manner and according to principles similar to
those instituted by Moses on behalf of the ancient Israelites.
Making of America: Discovery of the Ancient Principles, Chapter 2, W. Cleon Skousen.
4
As printed, Original Intent, David Barton, p218; John Locke,
Two Treatises, Book II, p. 285, Chapter xi, §135
5
American organic law comprises four (4) foundational documents making up Title I of the U.S. code: The Declaration of
Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, and The Constitution for the United States
of America.
6
The 10th amendment: all powers not granted to the national
government nor prohibited to the States are retained by the
States or by the people. The 9th amendment, penned by
James Madison is its sister amendment. It states that the
omission of any right within the Bill of Rights is not to be
considered given up by the people. It reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
7
The New American, June 30, 1986; From a speech delivered at a We, The People, Constitution Day luncheon,
Chicago, September 17, 1961; Robert Welch7
8
Ibid.
9
James Madison, VA Ratification Convention., June 1788
I Liked It Better When...
Children in 4th grade were reading material beyond 12th grade level rather than
adults having to write at a 4th grade level in
order for other adults to understand.
The strength of the President was reflected by his character not by his abs.
Christ and the Ten Commandments were
welcomed in school and condoms were not.
The citizenry heard Harvard University’s famous motto: “Veritas pro Christo et
ecclesia” (Truth for Christ and his Church)
rather than hearing the words America is
“no longer a Christian nation.”
People were more concerned about placing virtuous character into each student
rather than money.
People turned to the truth to face reality
rather than relying upon myths.
People understood America is a Constitutional republic and did not speak of her as
a democracy.
Government proclamations were about
fasting and praying rather than eating and
having fun. ( See: http:/www.michigan.gov/
Prophetic Words...
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public
servants, at such a distance [WASHINGTON,
DC], and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance,
be unable to administer and overlook all the
details necessary for the good government of
the citizens; and the same circumstances, be
rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. And I do truly
believe that if the principle were to prevail in
the United States in which the general government possesses all the powers of the state
governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government, it would become the
most corrupt government on the earth. You
have seen the practices by which the public
servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the
eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office building, and office hunting
would be produced by an assumption of all
the state powers into the hands of the general
government!
_Pres. Tho. Jefferson
2nd Inaugural Addr. 1805
“The Constitution defines the powers of Congress; and
every power not expressly delegated to that body, remains
in the several state-legislatures. The sovereignty and the
republican form of government of each state is guaranteed by the constitution; and the bounds of jurisdiction
between the federal and respective state governments,
_Noah Webster 1787
are marked with precision.”
gov/1,1607,7-168-25488-232493--,00.html)
People got their doctrine from church
rather than their indoctrination from the
public schools.
People understood that ultimate authority was in the hands of the people and not in
the government.
People made decisions based on facts
rather than by mere feelings.
A day of humiliation meant submission
to the Divine Will not being groped by a
TSA agent.
Although I liked it better “when,” I do
look forward to tomorrow! I look forward
to even more Americans appreciating their
heritage and the phrase “a shining city on a
hill” as in Matthew 5:14-16: “You are the light
of the world; a city set on a hill cannot be hid..”
And, better still… when the people come
to understand that America is free only
because our Constitutional Republic was
established upon a solid foundation of unchanging Biblical principles.
_Arline Helms
Sr. Advisor NHCCS Michigan
Sound Bites…
“The best argument against democracy is a
five-minute conversation with the
average voter.”
_Winston Churchill
WE’RE ON THE WEB
WWW.NHCCS.ORG
NHCCS Board of Directors
Dianne Gilbert—Chairman
Lee Button —Vice Chairman
Pat Sutliffe —Dir. Of Finance
Romelle Winters—Public Relations
Hon. Dan Itse—Sr. Advisor—NH
Leo Sullivan—Sr. Advisor—MA
Arline Helms—Sr. Advisor—MI
Adrienne Rice—Sr. Advisor—CT
Susan Polidura —Marketing
Honorary Board Members
Rosalie Babiarz
Richard Bloom
Hon. Harriet Cady
John Irish
Dr. Paul Jehle
Dr. Adrian Krieg
Pastor Garret Lear
James Masterson
George Moore
Paul Spidle
Ed. Wagner
Contact Information
Tel: 603-679-2444 ~ FAX: 603-679-5551
eMAIL: [email protected]
Follow NHCCS on Facebook
www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=267099237643
Volume 7—Issue 3
Page 6
A Commentary on the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire
The People’s Liberty
This article is in continuation of
the series of documentaries on
the New Hampshire Constitution.
The following five articles deal
with the administration of government. They work to define the
relationship between the people
and their government. Though
they contain fundamental princiHon. Dan Itse
ples, in many ways they go
beyond the general statements of principal and give instruction on how certain powers are to be delivered.
Art.11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.]
All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the
State of l8 years of age and upwards shall have an equal
right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town,
ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile.
No person shall have the right to vote under the Constitution of this State who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this State
or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on
notice to the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote
to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of
such offenses. The General Court shall provide by law for
voting by qualified voters who at the time of the biennial or
State elections, or of the primary elections therefor, or of
city elections, or of town elections by official ballot, are
absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants,
or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in
person, in the choice of any officer or officers to be
elected or upon any question submitted at such election.
Voting registration and polling places shall be easily accessible to all persons including disabled and elderly persons
who are otherwise qualified to vote in the choice of any
officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. The right to vote shall not be denied to any person because of the non-payment of any tax.
Every inhabitant of the State, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.
 June 2, l784
 Amended l903 to provide that in order to vote or be
eligible for office a person must be able to read the
English language and to write.
 Amended l9l2 to prohibit those convicted of treason,
bribery or willful violation of the election laws from
voting or holding elective office.
 Amended l942 to provide for absentee voting in general
elections.
 Amended l956 to provide for absentee voting in primary
elections.
 Amended l968 to provide right to vote not denied because of nonpayment of taxes. Also Amended in 1968 to
delete an obsolete phrase.
 Amended 1976 to reduce voting age to 18.
 Amended 1984 to provide accessibility to all registration
and polling places.
Article 11 describes the qualifications for
the right to vote. It is important that originally this Article had only the first six words
and the last sentence. The intervening language consists of specific causes for which the
suffrage can not be denied and must be denied. It is interesting to note that these all
constitute qualifications for suffrage which
have been generally covered in Part 2, Article
28 (repealed 1976). Unfortunately, by that
point, understanding of the parts of the Consti-
We’re So Sorry Mr. Franklin…
_Romelle Winters
tution was being lost. Mixing elections with
voter qualifications has caused confusion. In
reference to the recent controversies, it states
the equal right to office and establishes exclusive jurisdiction over absentee ballots to the
General Court. The obsolete phrase removed
in 1968 is not delineated, and as the Article
still contains all of the original language, it is
probably the qualification of reading English,
added in 1903, that was removed. The positive qualifications for franchise are inhabitancy and age. The concept of free elections
flows out of the Magna Carta and is reiterated
in the English Bill of Rights 1689.
The meaning of inhabitant as a qualification for the right to vote (suffrage) is being
questioned and is being defined in law such
that it alters the Constitution; which is unconstitutional. In order to understand the true
intent of the founders, the definitions of the
words as they understood them are important.
Following are definitions from Thomas
Sheridan's, "A Rhetorical Grammar," London,
1780:
 Inhabitant: Dweller, one that resides in a
place.
 Dwell (v): to inhabit, to live in a place, to
reside, to have a habitation.
 Habitation (n): place of abode, dwelling.
 Abode: Stay; continuation in a place.
Since these definitions are hardly exclusionary, we can look for guidance in Webster's
1828 "Dictionary of the American Language".
This is especially important as Sheridan's does
not include the word domicile, but Webster's
does.
INHAB'ITANT, n. A dweller; one who
dwells or resides permanently in a place, or
who has a fixed residence, as distinguished
from an occasional lodger or visitor. One who
has a legal settlement in a town, city or parish.
The conditions or qualifications which constitute a person an inhabitant of a town or parish,
so as to subject the town or parish to support
him, if a pauper, are defined by the statutes
of different governments or states.
Inhabitant is defined in Part 2, Article 30 as
being an inhabitant of where one is domiciled.
This is a higher level of definition than can be
achieved in a statute.
RES'IDENT, n. One who resides or dwells in
a place for some time.
DOMICIL, n. [L., a mansion.] An abode or
mansion; a place of permanent residence,
either of an individual or family; a residence,
animo manendi.
DOMICIL, DOMICILIATE, v.t. To establish a fixed residence, or a residence that
constitutes habitancy
DOMICILED. Having gained a permanent
residence or inhabitancy. Clearly, at least in
the American context, the fundamental qualification for voting and holding office was to
be a permanent resident. Domiciled is used to
define inhabitant in Part 2, Article 30. Domicile is clearly defined as a place of permanent
residency. Furthermore, it is the qualification
for being elected a Representative or Senator
One evening, on
the O’Reilly Factor, Rep. Anthony
Weiner
(D.NY)
told the story about
Ben Franklin. After
the Constitutional
Convention, Franklin was asked by a
woman, Mrs. Powell, “Mr. Franklin,
what kind of government have you
Romelle Winters
given us?” Franklin
responded, “A democracy, if you can keep it.”
Whoa. That’s not right. Franklin never
mentioned democracy but told Mrs. Powell
that we would have a Republic. Though, it
appears we haven’t kept it.
Congressman Weiner seems not to know
what kind of government the Founders, in
their wisdom, gave us, but also misreads and
misquotes History.
Congressman Weiner? That’s right. A man
who -- under oath -- swore to uphold the Constitution apparently does not understand the
government he has been given. And, he is not
alone. Mr. O’Reilly, who claims to have been
a History teacher didn’t correct him.
Newscasters, newsreaders, talking heads,
commentators and the rest of the sniveling
sycophants, who attempt to enlighten us, also
appear to be totally clueless. No newscast or
congressional speech is complete without
hearing our government called a democracy.
The Cabinet, the Supreme Court members,
and even Presidents appear to be unaware that
the Constitution gives us a Republic.
The question arises: Do our elected representatives not know what form of government
we have or are they trying to ingrain the concept of a democracy into our oatmeal-filled
brains? Do they not know that different forms
of government must be treated differently in
order to retain their character? How can anyone with a functioning conscience and minuscule intelligence not know a society cannot
fulfill its responsibilities to a nation when it is
controlled by an ignorant and misadjusted
leadership?
Unfortunately, our present crop of officials
doesn’t know; and, they are trying to change
the form of government we’ve been bequeathed by minds far greater than our own.
They don’t know what they are changing from
or what they are changing to. The voters have
little choice in options on the ballot and speak
of ‘picking the lesser of two evils.” How sad
that the dreams of men with superior minds
and values are being undermined by the nightmare goals of small minds and smaller ideals.
School textbooks insidiously tell students
that our democracy is governed by a “living
document.” That is an outright lie fostered by
the misguided philosophy of the spoiled brats
allowed to run free during the 60‘s. President
Obama, sounding like the typical child of the
60’s, speaks of the wave of revolution and
unrest in the world, when he praises the
(Continued on page 8 NH Constitution)
(Continued on page 7 Sorry Mr. Franklin)
Page 7
Original Intent
(Continued from page 6 - Sorry Mr Franklin)
undisciplined actions of the “youth” as they
attempt to change the world. Doesn’t he know
that maturity is an important factor in shaping
the lives of billions of people? Does he wish
to encourage immature behavior and promote
the thought that youthful ideas are the best?
Does he want to continue to support unrestrained energy? When will he learn that in
time his authority will be questioned? Hasn’t
he noticed that his hair is getting a little gray?
Unless you are standing on a firm foundation, you cannot function properly. You will
flounder like an aardvark in quicksand. That is
no way to run a government. Our Constitution
is the guide to good government; and, when
coupled with properly educated leadership, it
offers a rocklike foundation from which to
govern fairly and intelligently.
What in the world is going on in our country? It is quite obvious. Some people know
that we have a Republic and don‘t like it. The
prime example of this is our President. He
claims to be a Constitutional expert, but obstructs the Constitution at every opportunity.
We must realize that he knows the Constitution but doesn‘t like it. Why? The thought of
getting into his mind is a truly scary concept.
It is unexplored territory. One can only surmise that he doesn’t like the Constitution because his communist/socialist friends don’t
like it. His left-wing mother probably infused
that concept into his mind at an early age. His
beatnik grandparents probably reinforced it.
Obama is a genetic Constitution hater.
The Founders would never have believed
that the populace would be so ignorant. In
their day, almost every citizen owned and read
the Federalist Papers. Today, that book is only
skimmed by History majors in college. It’s a
little difficult to read and understand by today’s undereducated scholars. We wouldn’t
want their squishy minds to have to work,
would we?
Let’s face it; our government can succeed
only with informed voters and officials. We
have neither. How can we expect to put intelligent people into office when we do not recognize intelligence, or when our colleges don’t
teach truths, and when our people have been
misled by teachers and textbooks?
Do you have your children in a private
school? Don’t expect their knowledge to be
greater than the public school students. Teachers are trained in the same dumb-down universities, available textbooks are inaccurate, and
no one seems to know better, or to care.
Since the rush of women into the workplace,
the best and brightest of the population is no
longer going into teaching -- one of the few
jobs once available to educated women. The
draft-dodgers, running away from the unconstitutional war in Viet Nam, began to infiltrate
the easy “A” classes in education and sociology. Voila! Teachers are no longer the best
and brightest, but rather a haven for the many
that would have been, at one time, deemed
“not college material.” If your teachers are not
the best, how can they challenge those students who are?
Colleges and universities became filled with
ideologues that, in the 60’s, protested not because they thought the war to be unconstitutional, but because they were spoiled brats
who objected to being told what to do. They
believed in the left-wing command to
“challenge authority” -- unless it was socialist authority.
They questioned the authority of their parents, their government and even God. They
wanted no one to tell them what to do except
those who gave them their marching orders.
They took to marching in the streets with
fists pumping in support of Communism,
Socialism, Nazism, or any other ism which
upheld their need to be independent. Their
lack of experience and maturity blinded
them to the stronger reins of their beloved
ism. So they, and we, will be enslaved by
what they have chosen for us.
Many of these mis-contents flocked to
higher education and became PhDs. Thus,
we have a plethora of young people being
educated by the hippie generation, which has
never dropped its philosophy of big government. It is odd that those who don’t want to
be ordered around by those in authority have
fallen for extreme authoritarian philosophies.
Students joined by their sandaled and beaded
professors with gray pony tails, riot with
thugs and mob bosses against the freedom
that the Constitution offers its people. They
have been propagandized and lobotomized
into believing that an ignorant government
can provide the authority they strive to
avoid.
Yes, Mr. Franklin, we had been given a
Republic, but our laziness has taken it from
us. We could not keep it. We have far to fall
but the acceleration is increasing and soon
we will be mired in the depths from what
you and the other Founders attempted to protect us. The fall began with the downfall of
education. No nation that prizes freedom can
tolerate ignorant leaders who
encourage their own replication. Will parents reverse this trend and bring our nation
back to its once-great height?
Sadly: The more things change, the more
they remain the same. Welcome King
George, Hitler, Stalin, Marx and Weiner. We
have seen our future and it is you.
_Romelle Winters, Public Relations NHCCS
Cicero: Treason from Within...
“A nation can survive its fools, and even
the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason
from within.
An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner
openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those
within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys
alleys, heard in the very
halls of government itself
itself.
For the traitor appears not as a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works
secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the
body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is
the plague.”
_ Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Referendum…
It’s Not Quite Republican!
The Fourth Article of the Federal Constitution states per clause 4: “ The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form
of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and, on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic Violence.”
Per the late Dr. Cleon Skousen, Author,
Law Professor, and Constitutional Attorney
admitted to practice law in the District of
Columbia and before the District Court of
Appeals and the United States Supreme Court:
“This provision gives the United States government the
RIGHT to intervene in the affairs or any state whenever the
right to freely elected representative government has
ceases to exist or is in jeopardy of being destroyed.”
Dr. Skousen goes further to define the term
republican government: A republican form of government is one in which the people are governed by freely
elected representatives…[and] presumed to be one in
which political power is divided, balanced, and limited,
much as in the arrangement set forth in the United States
Constitution.
But, what of those States whose constitutions “allow the people themselves to make laws by voting on an initiative referendum”? Dr. Skousen questions “...whether or not this is ‘un-republican’ and in violation of this clause.”
We are not likely to learn the answer any
time soon: “So far, the Supreme Court has refused to
rule on whether or not the referendum process is an
unlawful delegation of legislative authority under the republican system of government…” Although, the
Court did decide, in Luther v. Borden, “ that
questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, and that ‘it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a state… as well as its
republican character.’ “
Nevertheless, the practice of referendum is
flawed; for, as Dr. Skousen points out, it has
allowed the legislature of referendum states to
“sometimes shirk its responsibilities on delicate issues by
using a referendum at the next election to have the people
make a determination of a legislative issue. Unfortunately,
referendum issues are sometimes deliberately prepared
so as to confuse the public. For example, if one is opposed
to a proposal it is sometimes written so that in order to
reject the proposal one must vote yes, or to ratify the
proposal one must vote no. “
Then too, “it has also been observed that the referendum is an unsatisfactory legislative procedure when the
issue is too complex and will require too much study time
for the general public to understand it or vote on it intelligently.”
It is for reasons like these that the Framers
gave the referendum no role in the American
Constitution. For the most part, they opposed
the practice of direct democracy setting up
instead, a representative republic where the
views of the people could be refined through a
body of elected officials assembled for just
that purpose.
Moreover, in a free society, there are some
issues that should never be put to a vote, especially when the outcome of that vote has the
possibility of trampling upon one’s inalienable
right of conscience, for example.
_Pat Sutliffe
Finance Chairman, NHCCS
1) Based on the writings of Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, pp: 639-640
Volume 7—Issue 3
(Continued from page 6 - NH Constitution)
that one be an inhabitant of the District. An
absentee is an inhabitant who is residing elsewhere temporarily. However, they still vote
where they are a permanent resident, not
where they are a temporary resident.
Art.l2.[Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.]
Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the
expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. But no part of a man's property shall
be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his
own consent, or that of the representative body of the
people. Nor are the inhabitants of this State controllable
by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent. June 2, l784.
Article 12 ties the protection of one’s liberty and property to the expense and execution
thereof. This principle was used in the original apportioning mechanisms for the two
chambers of the Legislature. The first chamber, the Senate, represented those who paid
taxes. The second chamber, the House of
Representatives, represented the people who
were to be protected. The last phrase in the
first sentence establishes justification for mandatory service in the Militia. This imparts the
one of three duties imparted to the people by
the Constitution: financial and military support of the State in return for protection of
natural rights (Article 2). Of course, according to Article 3, if the protection is not rendered, the taxes and service are not due.
The second sentence is the protective statement of eminent domain, and as it uses the
term property, not real estate, or estate; therefore, it extends to protection of chattel and
money. This second sentence flows out of the
Magna Carta.
The last sentence in Article 12 is one of the
most elegant in the Constitution. It prohibits
anybody other than the Legislature from making any law (or requiring any law to be made).
This principle is restated in Article 28 in regard to taxes and in Article 29 in regard to
general laws though with more emphasis than
in Article 29 as it refers both to the inception
and cessation of laws. The fact that these protections are stated twice as fundamental liberties underscores the importance that the people can only be subject to laws that the Legislature enacts and eliminates the capacity of the
Judiciary to write or eliminate law. This concept flows directly out of the English Bill of
Rights of 1689.
Art.12-a. [Power to Take Property Limited.]
No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent
domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another
person if the taking is for the purpose of private development of other private use of the property. Nov. 7, 2006
Article 12-a was added in response to the
Kelo Decision in Connecticut (2005). It clarifies the purposes for which eminent domain
can be used, and substantially limits legislative prerogative. It states that eminent domain
can not be used to transfer property between
individuals or private parties. However, a
strict reading of Part 1, Articles 1 and 10
would have arrived at the same result.
Art. l3.[Conscientious Objectors not
Compelled to Bear Arms.]
Page 8
No person, who is conscientiously scrupulous about the
lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto.
June 2, l784. Amended l964 by striking out reference to
buying one's way out of military service.
Article 13 is an enumerated right of conscience. It is interesting to note that consistent with Article 12, conscientious objectors
were originally compelled to substitute finances for military service, rendering personal service when necessary. It is also interesting that removing the requirement to
pay an equivalent for exemption was thought
of as buying one’s way out of military service when it was removed. However, it is
clear from Articles 3 and 4 that the intent
was allowing conscientious objection without eliminating the need to contribute to the
defense of the State.
Art.l4.[Legal Remedies to be Free,
Complete, and prompt.]
Every subject of this State is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he
may receive in his person, property, or character; to
obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to
purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly,
and without delay; conformably to the laws.
June 2, l784
Article 14 declares a right of free access
to redress of wrongs resulting in injury or
loss. It prevents the government from creating the jeopardy of having to pay all legal
costs in the event of losing a case on questionable constitutional grounds, though this
might be required in a commercial contract.
It also makes the practice of having to pay a
fee to gain access to the courts patently unconstitutional. This Article flows out of the
Magna Carta.
Currently, the Legislature is working to
make our statutes to conform to this Amendment. The most recent issue is the taking of
land for public utilities. The law is being
amended to require that to not authorize eminent domain would jeopardize the
delivery of electricity.
_Hon. Dan Itse
NHCCS Sr. Advisor, NH
Hear Ye...Hear Ye!
ANNOUNCI NG...
CONSTITUTION DAY 2011
“Restoring Federalism”
Exercising States’ Constitutional Resistance
With Author & Tea Party Speaker
Larry Schweikart
What Can the States Do Now?:
To restore their sovereignty
Save the Date:
Sunday, September 18th
Sheraton Hotel Conference Center
Portsmouth, NH
Come celebrate the
224th anniversary of the signing of
The Constitution for the
United States of America
For More Information:
Visit Us: www.nhccs.org ~ Call: 603-679-2444
Email: [email protected]
Follow NHCCS on Facebook
The Founding Fathers on the
Evils of Democracy
Our nation’s Founding Fathers could have chosen to
establish a democracy rather than a republic. But they
chose NOT to do so. Here’s why: 1
“Democracy will soon degenerate into an
anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will
do what is right in his own eyes and no
man’s life or property or reputation or
liberty will be secure…”
_John Adams
2nd President, Signer: Declaration of Independence
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been
found incompatible with personal security,
or the rights of property; and have in general,
been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths.”
_James Madison, 4th President
Father of the American Constitution
“A democracy is a volcano which conceals
the fiery materials of its own destruction.
These will produce an eruption and carry
desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness
which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty”
_Fisher Ames
Author of the House Language for the First Amendment
“We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate...as [it has] everywhere terminated, in
despotism...Democracy! savage and wild.
Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous
and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.”
_Gouverneur Morris
Signer and Penman of the Constitution
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It
soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did
not commit suicide.”
_John Adams
“The experience of all former ages had
shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating
and short-lived.”
_John Quincy Adams
6th President of the United States
“A simple democracy...is one of the greatest
evils.”
_Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“In democracy...there are commonly tumults
and disorders...Therefore a pure democracy
is generally a very bad government. It is
often, the most tyrannical government of
earth.”
_Noah Webster
“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be
carried far into the departments of state—it
is very subject to caprice and the madness of
popular rage.”
_John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“It may generally be remarked that the more
a government resembles pure democracy the
more they abound with disorder and confusion.”
_Zephaniah Swif
Author of America’s First Legal Text
1. As printed in Original Intent: the Courts, the Constitution, and
Religion,; D. Barton. Pp.335-336